Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Buying my first printer, epson 3800 or 2400  (Read 28553 times)
bheiser
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2007, 12:12:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Try running an Epson in an area with 35-40% typical humitidy, you will be running head cleanings every other day.

Hi,
Are you saying more or less humidity causes more frequent nozzle clogs?  (I'm not sure if you're suggesting 35-40% humidity is high or low) .

I'm just wondering what to expect here in San Francisco where it is quite humid (e.g. right now it's sunny & clear and 60% humidity.  This afternoon when the fog rolls in, it'll be much higher).
« Last Edit: November 21, 2007, 12:15:43 PM by bheiser » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6970


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2007, 12:56:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi,
Are you saying more or less humidity causes more frequent nozzle clogs?  (I'm not sure if you're suggesting 35-40% humidity is high or low) .

I'm just wondering what to expect here in San Francisco where it is quite humid (e.g. right now it's sunny & clear and 60% humidity.  This afternoon when the fog rolls in, it'll be much higher).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154721\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Epson recommends operating the machine within a humidity range of 35%~45%. The outdoor humidity and the humidity within the room where the printer sits can of course differ considerably. Heating and air-conditioning both dry the air. Nozzle clogs are not only a function of humidity. Other factors are also at work - age of the machine and total amount of material run through it, length of time between printing sessions, environmental contaminants, etc.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ralph Eisenberg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #22 on: November 26, 2007, 06:56:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I have both. I would recommend the 3800. Superb printer. I've essentially encountered no difficulties in the 7 months i've had it. No clogs. The very fine 2400 required standard maintenance of the foam pads for  the excess ink reservoir after 15 months that cost roughly 1/3 the price of the machine (to replace a few dollars in parts). On the 3800, the user can perform this operation in a minute at the cost of a maintenance cartridge. I would add that Eric Chan's excellent site devoted to the 3800 offers a wealth of useful information.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2007, 06:57:53 AM by Ralph Eisenberg » Logged

Ralph
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 26, 2007, 07:53:36 AM »
ReplyReply

I have been running a 2400 for 2 years or so.  It is an excellent printer.  Nozzzle clogs have been minimal, regardless of humidity.  Image quality is excellent on matte and glossy papers.  Ink costs are high compared to the 3800.

I would take issue with one claim that the 2400 is difficult to swap glossy and matte black cartridges.  I just change the cartridge.  Not a big deal compared to my 7880....whoa that is a pain.  

Based upon ink costs alone, I would recommend the 3800, but based upon quality and ease of use, the 2400 is extremely close.

One compelling reason to go still go with Epson printers is that in the fine art community, there is a lot of experience using them.  It is rare that you can't find profiles or significant experience with whatever problem you might have on an epson.  The HP and Canon printers are building a reputation and knowledge-base among artists, but if you want to leverage the experience of other artists online, the epson will be far easier.  

Finally, what paper do you want to use?  Choices about your paper are integral to the decision about printer.  Will you need to switch back and forth between matte and glossy papers?  Do you like to use a variety of third party papers? Epson generally has the best support for a multitude of papers.  Again, there is a lot of experience using every possible paper/ink combination on Epson.  Canon and HP are a bit more insistent about using their papers.  

Good luck, and remember, there aren't really any bad printers in the price range you are looking at.  Whatever you get will make you happy.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6970


WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 26, 2007, 08:06:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...............
 Canon and HP are a bit more insistent about using their papers. 
..............
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156065\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This statement I wonder about. Don't you think that with any of these printers as long as you can get a good custom profile made for whatever paper type you chose the results should be fine?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 26, 2007, 09:01:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This statement I wonder about. Don't you think that with any of these printers as long as you can get a good custom profile made for whatever paper type you chose the results should be fine?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156069\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the issue is more in the Canon area where I still have concerns about the lack of print permanence data.  The HP Z series seem to have good data available at Wilhelm imaging.  Epson has a long history of strong data at Wilhelm.  I just now looked at Wilhelm Imaging and was pleasantly surprised to see the Hahnemuhle papers tested on the Z3100.  I now seem to recall that HP and Hahnemuhle have some sort of partnership agreement to market tested papers.  That is a very positive step in my mind.  Canon needs to do the same.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6970


WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 26, 2007, 09:33:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think the issue is more in the Canon area where I still have concerns about the lack of print permanence data.  The HP Z series seem to have good data available at Wilhelm imaging.  Epson has a long history of strong data at Wilhelm.  I just now looked at Wilhelm Imaging and was pleasantly surprised to see the Hahnemuhle papers tested on the Z3100.  I now seem to recall that HP and Hahnemuhle have some sort of partnership agreement to market tested papers.  That is a very positive step in my mind.  Canon needs to do the same.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156083\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You have a point, but not clear what to make of it. The latest I just saw on Wilhelm's site reads as follows:

<<Canon imagePROGRAF iPF5000 17x24-inch,
12-Ink Printer and New Lucia Pigmented Inks
......................
WIR is currently testing the new printer, inks and media.

A review of preliminary test data indicates that prints made with the Lucia pigmented inks and select Canon photo and fine art papers will have WIR Display Permanence Ratings in excess of 100 years for color images and significantly beyond that for monochrome images.

Final test results will be posted when available. >>

That was probably from late February 2006 or so. It is now near the end of 2007. One can only speculate that either the final tests aren't ready for publication or they are and the client hasn't permitted publication; nonetheless, the general statement of preliminary outcomes quoted above provides some comfort - though not to the same degree as for those where the whole story is published in detail.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Sven W
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 514


« Reply #27 on: November 26, 2007, 05:06:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have been running a 2400 for 2 years or so.  It is an excellent printer.  Nozzzle clogs have been minimal, regardless of humidity.  Image quality is excellent on matte and glossy papers.  Ink costs are high compared to the 3800.

I would take issue with one claim that the 2400 is difficult to swap glossy and matte black cartridges.  I just change the cartridge.  Not a big deal compared to my 7880....whoa that is a pain. 

Based upon ink costs alone, I would recommend the 3800, but based upon quality and ease of use, the 2400 is extremely close.
  Talking about ink-costs; why not go for the 4880 at once?
Half the ink-costs vs 3800, Roll option, cutter, sheet-tray and more robuste.

One compelling reason to go still go with Epson printers is that in the fine art community, there is a lot of experience using them.  It is rare that you can't find profiles or significant experience with whatever problem you might have on an epson.  The HP and Canon printers are building a reputation and knowledge-base among artists, but if you want to leverage the experience of other artists online, the epson will be far easier. 
  I totally agree......

Finally, what paper do you want to use?  Choices about your paper are integral to the decision about printer.  Will you need to switch back and forth between matte and glossy papers?  Do you like to use a variety of third party papers? Epson generally has the best support for a multitude of papers.  Again, there is a lot of experience using every possible paper/ink combination on Epson.  Canon and HP are a bit more insistent about using their papers.
  If you don't have a spectro and make your own profiles. 

Good luck, and remember, there aren't really any bad printers in the price range you are looking at.  Whatever you get will make you happy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156065\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: November 26, 2007, 05:12:43 PM by Sven W » Logged

Stockholm, Sweden
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 770


« Reply #28 on: November 26, 2007, 05:43:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Canon has published the results (including Wilhelm's results) here:

http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/space/showi...ce_April_07.pdf

Apparently, they didn't want to pay the stiff prices Wilhelm would charge to publish officially on his site.  At least, that is the line we are hearing.  Seems reasonable to me, but don't know if it is true or not.  Canon's own testing results are also included in this document.

--John
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 26, 2007, 05:52:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Canon has published the results (including Wilhelm's results) here:

http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/space/showi...ce_April_07.pdf

Apparently, they didn't want to pay the stiff prices Wilhelm would charge to publish officially on his site.  At least, that is the line we are hearing.  Seems reasonable to me, but don't know if it is true or not.  Canon's own testing results are also included in this document.

--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Results look adequate, if unimpressive.  The conspiracy theorist in me says the whole thing sounds fishy.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9187



WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 26, 2007, 05:59:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Results look adequate, if unimpressive.  The conspiracy theorist in me says the whole thing sounds fishy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156249\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I' curious, what looks fishy?

John, I haven't had much experience with the Canon papers, they sent me two kinds; Premium Bright Photo Satin and Premium Matt. The Bright Photo is absolutely awful and ugly IMHO. I was far happier using Epson Luster. I wonder how that would affect longevity.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 770


« Reply #31 on: November 26, 2007, 06:02:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
John, I haven't had much experience with the Canon papers, they sent me two kinds; Premium Bright Photo Satin and Premium Matt. The Bright Photo is absolutely awful and ugly IMHO. I was far happier using Epson Luster. I wonder how that would affect longevity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156252\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agreed.  I use Epson Premium Luster, which had the largest gamut on the iPF5000 of any paper tested (until Harman FB Al Gloss came along).  Hopefully the longevity is similar.

--John
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 26, 2007, 08:38:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I' curious, what looks fishy?

John, I haven't had much experience with the Canon papers, they sent me two kinds; Premium Bright Photo Satin and Premium Matt. The Bright Photo is absolutely awful and ugly IMHO. I was far happier using Epson Luster. I wonder how that would affect longevity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156252\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't generally trust business or industry to provide the whole and unvarnished truth.  They may not exactly lie, but they may also not be entirely forthcoming.  That is why public companies need independent financial audits.  That is why I like an independent firm like Wilhelm to certify results.  If they are unwilling to certify the results, then I am suspicious about what is being witheld from Canon's results.  

It may be that I am being paranoid, but epson has a long history of certifying results.  HP is obviously also committed to certifying their results with Wilhelm.  What is so special about Canon that they don't need to have the same independent validation.  

I own a canon camera.  I love it.  But until they get their print longevity story in order it will remain an obstacle to me buying their printers.  Print longevity is very important to me.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Sunesha
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 27, 2007, 02:56:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I did some test prints with Epson 3800 at my local camera store. It seems like Epson got better ground in my home city. Which makes it a big plus. But it was amazing how good the prints was. Much better the ones I pay alot from the printshop.

The only thing that bothers me a bit is the lack off rollpaper.

I guess when it is time I have to do some research in paper.

Thanks all for this thread. I really gotten more help than I needed . It has helped to do my research.

I guess as someone said there arnt really any bad choice in this price range. It is just different choices.

I read that paper profiles for Epson is ok. As I understood after watching camera to print it very expensive to profile by yourself.

Is there any cheapo way to profile prints?

I saw that some people offer you to profile, but isnt that just for one paper profile?
Logged

Daniel Sunebring, Malmoe, Sweden
Homepage: Sunesha.se
Non-native english speaker and dyslexian, so excuse my mistake in grammar and spelling."
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8069



WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 27, 2007, 09:37:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I read that paper profiles for Epson is ok. As I understood after watching camera to print it very expensive to profile by yourself.

Is there any cheapo way to profile prints?

I saw that some people offer you to profile, but isnt that just for one paper profile?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you manage to narrow your paper choices down to one or two or just a few, then having profiles made for them is much less expensive than either buying (and learning to use) the equipment + software needed to profile it yourself or buying an expensive RIP (such as ImagePrint) which has generally good profiles for many papers.

After many futile attempts to profile a few papers for my 2200 using scanner-based software, I finally shelled out big for ImagePrint, which does fine. But when I upgrade to a 3800 (some time soon now) I intend to buy a few custom profiles from Andrew Rodney ([a href=\"http://www.digitaldog.net]digitaldog[/url]).

"Cheapo ways" turned out to be very expensive for me.  
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6970


WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 27, 2007, 10:05:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Eric,

I agree with this advice. I've come to several tentative conclusions about all this after trying a number of different papers, profiles and approaches:

(1) For Epson papers their own profiles with the 4800 and 3800 printers are really very, very good. I have not been able to improve upon them with custom profiles, which speaks for the consistency of Epson's manufacturing processes.

(2) For other papers, one has the choice of using other profiles supplied by the paper manufacturers or distributors where such exist (for example free profiles for Innova papers are available on their website and the one I tested is pretty good), or going to a custom provider such as Andrew Rodney, Cathy's, Giorgio Trucco, to name a few in the USA, and then in Europe - Christophe Metairie in Bayonne, France.

(3) After experimenting with a number of papers to see what you like best, it's good to settle on two or three and really learn to use them well via softproofing.

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Sven W
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 514


« Reply #36 on: November 27, 2007, 04:02:28 PM »
ReplyReply

(2) For other papers, one has the choice of using other profiles supplied by the paper manufacturers or distributors where such exist (for example free profiles for Innova papers are available on their website and the one I tested is pretty good), or going to a custom provider such as Andrew Rodney, Cathy's, Giorgio Trucco, to name a few in the USA, and then in Europe - Christophe Metairie in Bayonne, France.


Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156432\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]

Sunesha/Daniel
Of course we also make good printerprofiles in Sweden......
Eyeone + ProfileMaker + Atkinson chart = All you need.

Contact me offline or have look at my site (sorry only in swedish)
www.profiler.nu

/Sven
Logged

Stockholm, Sweden
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 27, 2007, 07:34:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I just got a custom profile from Cathy for $35.  It looks good.  I wouldn't consider getting profiles as an obstacle, especially with the 3800.  In the past I have always had good luck with profiles from the paper provider.  In this case, the Epson 7880 profiles from Entrada were very bad.  My ne ones are much better.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
bigbrotherbob33
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 28, 2007, 04:15:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I just got a custom profile from Cathy for $35.  It looks good.  I wouldn't consider getting profiles as an obstacle, especially with the 3800.  In the past I have always had good luck with profiles from the paper provider.  In this case, the Epson 7880 profiles from Entrada were very bad.  My ne ones are much better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156548\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I just saw that Booksmart Studio (the guys with the printable metal) has as sale on their custom profiles for $25.00 down from $40.  I have been using them for almost a year now and I get better profiles from that service than from my old eye one photo.  Highly recommended for profiles, and I get my paper from them too.  Hope this helps, and back to the original question:  go with the 3800 (or better yet wait until the next version comes out, they are due for a new one).
Logged

Digital Printer


Bob J.
Sunesha
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 28, 2007, 05:02:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I will have to try alot, thats only way off learning I guess. But theory and knowledge saves you mistakes. Thanks again

Quote
(
Sunesha/Daniel
Of course we also make good printerprofiles in Sweden......
Eyeone + ProfileMaker + Atkinson chart = All you need.

Contact me offline or have look at my site (sorry only in swedish)
www.profiler.nu

/Sven
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156511\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sven,

I think I will contact you when I get the printer. Always nice to support swedish business.

Cheers,
« Last Edit: November 28, 2007, 05:03:47 PM by Sunesha » Logged

Daniel Sunebring, Malmoe, Sweden
Homepage: Sunesha.se
Non-native english speaker and dyslexian, so excuse my mistake in grammar and spelling."
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad